"And you honestly believe that would stop a dem. lawyer/prosecutor or judge?" Yes. I'm not a TX attorney, but I'm dubious that the state's case would have survived motion to dismiss the indictment (which surely would have been filed) with such a facial challenge to a case with such a glaring constitutional infirmity. And, even if the trial judge would have denied MTD (which wouldn't have happened, but even if it did), the interlocutory appeal would have prevailed.
IOW, it never would have made it to trial.
It would be like saying someone was convicted without being able to present a defense or cross-examine a witness. That would never happen, and this would never happen.
This is some of the timeline for this investigation. Take it all with a grain of salt as it comes from Wikipeia.
Tom Delay Campaign Finance Investigation
- September 8, 2005: A federal grand jury indicted TRMPAC, which allegedly accepted an illegal political contribution of $100,000 from the Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care and the Texas Association of Business, on four charges, including unlawful political advertising, unlawful contributions to a political committee and unlawful expenditures such as those to a graphics company and political candidates.
- September 28, 2005: A Travis County grand jury operating under Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle indicted DeLay for conspiring to violate Texas state election law stemming from issues dealing with his involvement in TRMPAC. Texas law prohibits corporate contributions in state legislative races. The indictment charged that TRMPAC accepted corporate contributions, laundered the money through the Republican National Committee, and directed it to favored Republican candidates in Texas.
- September 30, 2005: In response to a motion to dismiss his initial indictment, Earle sought a second indictment of DeLay from a second grand jury. That jury refused to indict. Contrary to normal Texas procedure, a "no bill" document was not publicly released, and no public announcement was made regarding the result until after Earle had presented evidence to a third grand jury and obtained an indictment.
- October 3, 2005: Earle sought and received a new indictment of DeLay from a third grand jury in Austin on charges of conspiracy and money laundering. The next day, in a written statement, Earle publicly admitted that he had presented the case to three grand juries, and that one of the three had refused to indict DeLay. Earle said that he had presented the new money-laundering charge to another grand jury because the previous grand jury had expired. DeLay's lawyers said that Earle should not have waited to make the statement until after 5 P.M. that day.
- October 3, 2005: DeLay's lawyers filed a motion to throw out the charge of conspiracy to violate election law as fraudulent, claiming it was a violation of the U.S. Constitution's ban on ex-post facto applications of law. DeLay's lawyers claim that, in 2002, the crime of conspiracy did not apply to Texas election law. However, George Dix, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said that charges of criminal conspiracy could legally be applied to any felony (including violation of election law) committed prior to the 2003 law. He characterized the 2003 change cited by DeLay's lawyers as a clarification of existing law, saying, "It isn't unheard of–the Legislature passing a law to make clear what the law is." Because the Texas Penal Code defines laundered money only as money gained as the "proceeds of criminal activity", DeLay's lawyers maintain that misuse of corporate donations, even if it occurred, could not constitute money laundering.
- October 7, 2005: DeLay's attorneys filed a motion in court to have the latest indictment thrown out, charging that Earle coerced the grand jury and illegally discussed grand jury information and encouraged others to do the same.[8]
- October 19, 2005: A Texas court issued a warrant for DeLay's arrest.[9] DeLay surrendered at the Harris County, Texas jail the next day, was booked, was photographed, was fingerprinted, and posted a $10,000 bond.[10]
- October 21, 2005: DeLay appeared in court.[11]
- November 1, 2005: DeLay prevailed in a motion to remove assigned Travis County judge Bob Perkins from the case. Perkins had donated to Democratic candidates and organizations, including MoveOn.org. DeLay's attorneys argued Perkins could not be publicly perceived as impartial under the circumstances. DeLay is also attempting to have the venue changed from Democratic-leaning Travis County.
- November 3, 2005: Pat Priest, a "semi-retired" judge, was chosen to preside over the case.[12]
- November 22, 2005: DeLay filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him.[13]
- December 5, 2005: Judge Priest dismissed one count, conspiracy to violate election law, but let stand two counts alleging money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.[14]
- April 19, 2006: The Texas Third Court of Appeals upheld the decision to dismiss the charge of conspiracy to violate election law.[15]
- May 19, 2006: Prosecutors filed an appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest criminal court, to reinstate the conspiracy indictment.[16]
- June 27, 2007: The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled 5-4 to uphold the decisions of the lower courts and throw out the conspiracy to violate election law charge.[17]